light and transient causes....
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
I used this phrase from the DOI in a reply to a post over in GD, but the phrase itself provoked me to thought;
Just what are 'light and transient causes', and specifically, how would you define when they are no longer that. I am certain that if a poll were taken on the forums, it would net many different responses. For the sake of simplicity, I will keep the focus centered on the RTKBA, as it is the guarantor of the other rights.
While I have considered my definition of it many times, one question keeps coming back up; What would the Founders have to say on the issue? Thus far, it is evident the majority of folks believe that permits, paperwork, AWBs and the like fit the definition of 'light and transient'. If Washington, Jefferson, Adams, or Paine were here, would they believe the same? IMO, no.
For quite some time, the systematic extraction of liberty's teeth has been occuring in the form of those things I have mentioned previously; 4473s, permits to carry/purchase, bans, registration of certain weapons, etc. I believe any of these would have caused an uproar two centuries ago, for they would have been viewed for what they are; infringements of the RTKBA and in direct contradiction to the Constitution.
So what is the difference? Why not an outcry from over 80 million gun owners? It's really quite simple. Most gun owners do not feel the 'pain' of the extraction because they are under the anesthetic of 'common sense regulation', 'compromising in order to keep' (never have figured that one out), 'for the common good', or they have fallen prey to the lie that the RTKBA is about hunting or competing, and emit not so much as a whimper when another tooth gets pulled. Kind of like an old Pink Floyd lyric; 'And I have become, comfortably numb.'
You, gun owner, think about it. Do you think the 'light and transient causes' line has been crossed? If not, what will it take for you personally? Will it be another AWB? Registration? A national FOID card? Full confiscation?
Something to think about.
I used this phrase from the DOI in a reply to a post over in GD, but the phrase itself provoked me to thought;
Just what are 'light and transient causes', and specifically, how would you define when they are no longer that. I am certain that if a poll were taken on the forums, it would net many different responses. For the sake of simplicity, I will keep the focus centered on the RTKBA, as it is the guarantor of the other rights.
While I have considered my definition of it many times, one question keeps coming back up; What would the Founders have to say on the issue? Thus far, it is evident the majority of folks believe that permits, paperwork, AWBs and the like fit the definition of 'light and transient'. If Washington, Jefferson, Adams, or Paine were here, would they believe the same? IMO, no.
For quite some time, the systematic extraction of liberty's teeth has been occuring in the form of those things I have mentioned previously; 4473s, permits to carry/purchase, bans, registration of certain weapons, etc. I believe any of these would have caused an uproar two centuries ago, for they would have been viewed for what they are; infringements of the RTKBA and in direct contradiction to the Constitution.
So what is the difference? Why not an outcry from over 80 million gun owners? It's really quite simple. Most gun owners do not feel the 'pain' of the extraction because they are under the anesthetic of 'common sense regulation', 'compromising in order to keep' (never have figured that one out), 'for the common good', or they have fallen prey to the lie that the RTKBA is about hunting or competing, and emit not so much as a whimper when another tooth gets pulled. Kind of like an old Pink Floyd lyric; 'And I have become, comfortably numb.'
You, gun owner, think about it. Do you think the 'light and transient causes' line has been crossed? If not, what will it take for you personally? Will it be another AWB? Registration? A national FOID card? Full confiscation?
Something to think about.
0
-
quote:Just what are 'light and transient causes'
A fair and thought provoking question Shane....
Without resorting to a long diatribe([:I]), I will simply say this...
"Light and transient causes" are NOT the chronic assault on the Constitution itself by the Legislative Branch.
They are NOT the chronic direct assault on the Constitution by the Executive Branch.
They are NOT the chronic direct assault on the Constitution and the very foundations of this Republic by the Judicial Branch.
They are NOT the continuing predatory nature of government, manifested by its criminalization, regulation, control and direct meddling in almost EVERY aspect of an individual citizen's life.
They are NOT the increasing confiscatory taxation and "fees" that are jammed down the throat of individuals.
They are NOT the corruption of our very monetary and financial structure by the unConstitutional creation of a "Federal Reserve", a cabal of secret international central banks with absolute power and authority to rule from behind the scenes.
They are NOT deliberate and continuing direct assaults on "Liberties Teeth", which have the crystal clear intent of disarming the majority of America's populace and of removing our ability to appropriately and definitively address those reasons which are found to NOT be "light and transient causes".
They are NOT the deliberate and systematic subversion of America's Sovereignty and the crystal clear move toward world-government.
They are NOT the infestation of all levels of our government, with the above ends in mind, of a cabal of CFR/Trilateral Commission quislings and their sycophants, who are clearly moving the world government agenda forward, right before our very eyes.
"Light and transient causes" are NOT the UnConstitutional spending and the mortgaging of the future of our citizens to the cabal of international banks and the shadow government that they clearly constitute.
They are NOT the systematic destruction of our manufacturing and industrial base and the wholesale treasonous sellout to foreign nations who undercut and profit from this deliberate government action.
They are NOT the deliberately allowed invasion of illegal aliens into America and the absolute unwillingness of government to shut it down and to root out and deport those who are here in the tens of millions, who are destroying the fabric of American Society.
No, it is correct that "light and transient causes" are certainly NOT an appropriate reason to "alter or abolish" our government and restore the Republic.
This Constitutional Republic has been all but rotted away and/or deliberately destroyed, through the partial list of insidious methods listed above.
Frankly, most people don't even recognize it, or if they do, they want to pretend it isn't happening, or that it isn't as bad as all that.
Where will it end? Who knows, but an awakening of the remaining 'non-dependent', quasi-freedom minded portion of the populous is critical and a vocal and ever vigilant 3% must remain and be prepared for what may come.
God help us.........
Well, this was not a short reply, but then, it is not a "light and transient" issue, is it?[;)]
Rant off......0 -
This is yet again more confounding brilliance on the part of the founders. I am not awake enough to answer the question but I will suggest the answer come from not us as gun owners but us as citizens and patriots. There is more to this than arms. Indeed, arms would not be an issue being contested if one side did not fear them for their trespasses upon other liberties. 0 -
While I will not be as long in my reply, I do thank you for your post. It is perhaps the best one I have seen in a long time. AS to my thoughts on it, Yes I do believe the line has been crossed. Has been for years. I agree with you completely when you talk about the majority of gun owners being comfortably numb to the reality of what has and continues to happen. Most believe that as long as it doesn't effect them personnally, then what's the big deal. I remember so many guys who said, "Oh nobody needs one of those black rifles. What good are they? It's not like they want to ban my hunting rifle." Well guess what, now they are looking at "sniper rifles".
I don't know what it will take to wake up those 80 million gun owners. But I'm afraid it's going to be really bad.0 -
I, too, have been thinking about this very thing Shane.
I think the 'line' varies greatly from person one to another but it is cumulative. Like the saying 'the straw that broke the camels back'!!
Then there is various degrees of commitment to 'effect the changes'. Some have said it's time to start shooting, others want to protest openly, still others thing corresponding with the elected officials is what is required, some believe in the various organizations who pro-port to support the 'cause'.
To me it is the totality of the circumstances! I excepted, but did not support, the simple filling out the 'papers' need to buy a gun, simply keeping track of a serial numbered item which could be and are used in a crime, but when they started the background checks I said BS.
From that point on I have been very active in my 'protest'.
What is happening now and will get worse is far more than 'light and transient'. So to me the line has been crossed. I do not intend to 'draw first blood', but I will not allow the government to actively violate my rights without standing up for those rights!!!
I have been fighting 'bullies' my whole life, why stop now.
"I am older now and still running against the wind"!0 -
I thought this topic would take off, since it is so pertinent to our current times. Oh well, thanks for the post anyway Shane. It was a good one. 0 -
I thought this topic would take off, since it is so pertinent to our current times.
Captain,
As did I. Problem is, most folks are to wrapped up in themselves and pay no mind to our current times.
Oh well, thanks for the post anyway Shane. It was a good one.
Your welcome. Just trying to get folks to think, and to look at the situation with a mindset similar to that of the Founders. That is the only thing that will get us back to where we need to be.0 -
Everyone is so fired up over the 'economy' they are not paying attention to anything else. Thus those in power (sp liberals) use this distraction as camouflage to continue their agenda in other areas, RE: The RTKABA's!!![:(!] 0 -
I took the liberty of posting the thread over on General. It got a few hits.
I think all know where I stand...since I make no secret of it.
Should have been open warfare in 1968.0 -
'68 was three years before I was born, but from what I know of that time people were in an uproar over Vietnam and some assasinations, and the gun grabbers had public opinion on their side (todays gun-grabbin' politicians were yesterdays hippy protestin' pot smokin hair heads) and they used it effectively. Plus, most gun owners didn't see that the slope was indeed slippery and were also asleep while it was their turn to be on watch........... 0 -
It saddens me to know that for all our schools and technology, and the time that has elapsed, Our forefathers are still hands down the most competent, skilled and educated politicians this country has ever seen. 0 -
It saddens me to know that for all our schools and technology, and the time that has elapsed, Our forefathers are still hands down the most competent, skilled and educated politicians this country has ever seen.
Gonzo,
I understand what you are saying, and I agree 100% with the message, but the Founders were 'statesmen' more than they were 'politicians', and there is a vast difference between the two.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
It saddens me to know that for all our schools and technology, and the time that has elapsed, Our forefathers are still hands down the most competent, skilled and educated politicians this country has ever seen.
Gonzo,
I understand what you are saying, and I agree 100% with the message, but the Founders were 'statesmen' more than they were 'politicians', and there is a vast difference between the two.[;)]
And we could sorely use men like that in these times [:(] But sadly people such as that are in short supply and are also less inclined to pursue positions in the political theater as they know todays politicias are snake oil saleman and charlatans...........0 -
rkba,
x-ring.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
It saddens me to know that for all our schools and technology, and the time that has elapsed, Our forefathers are still hands down the most competent, skilled and educated politicians this country has ever seen.
Gonzo,
I understand what you are saying, and I agree 100% with the message, but the Founders were 'statesmen' more than they were 'politicians', and there is a vast difference between the two.[;)]
Yes they were Shane,
And as statesmen they were deed thinking open minded mediators. They knew they had to work with others to come to a consensus all could live with. In other words they knew (the dirty word) compromise was part of being a statesman. They did not compromise their integrity by doing this, but they considered others view and opinions to come up with solutions to problems which worked and pleased MOST of those affected by their decisions. We all could learn from them!!![;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Yes they were Shane,
And as statesmen they were deed thinking open minded mediators. They knew they had to work with others to come to a consensus all could live with. In other words they knew (the dirty word) compromise was part of being a statesman. They did not compromise their integrity by doing this, but they considered others view and opinions to come up with solutions to problems which worked and pleased MOST of those affected by their decisions. We all could learn from them!!![;)]
I would agree for the most part, Jim. We must take care that we learn the right lessons, and must also be secure in our knowledge that there are times when pleasing MOST of those affected is wrong if it requires compromising that which should not be compromised.0 -
And that is the trick. Appeasing people for the sake of not offending them, or just to get them off your back is NOT being a "statesman". Giving up rights, for example gun rights, is NOT acceptable compromise. It may be a delicate balancing act, but anyone advocating a watered down version of the BOR isn't trying to work with you on issues affecting criminal firearm usage or means with which to combat it, but instead is seeking dominion over you and using emotion to derive you of inalienable rights.
I have no problem trying to find a workable solution to the criminal elements' misuse of firearms. However, telling an honest, law abiding citizen he may not have certain weapons due to some (insert favorite euphemistic term here) commiting crimes is never going to have an appreciable effect on "keeping guns out of the wrong hands". I , instead, would prefer you stiffen the penalties, the certainty of punishment, should you decide to use a firearm in the commision of a crime. Punish the act, not the tool.
Our "elected" officials do not see things in this light, as what they really want is a means to control the populace at large, not crime. The fact that they are using emotionally driven propaganda to subvert the constitution, in particular 2A, is NOT a light and transient thing. It may not be enough to push some individuals over the edge, but the more they do it, the more the load increases that will ineveitably force some to the conclusion that the would-be-tyrants in office have finally gone too far and just may decide to push back.0 -
Gee, I wonder what they started with, if their "compromise" ended up with.....
"the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed!"0 -
quote:pickenup
Moderator
USA
19441 Posts
Posted - 02/24/2009 : 2:25:05 PM
Gee, I wonder what they started with, if their "compromise" ended up with.....
"the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed!"
I DEMAND that the compromisers, the Quislings, the fellow travelers, the Beast Lovers to allow these words to burn a hole through your minds.
Live them, breath them, study them...for the world tommorow will not be worth your living on the other side of what is coming...if you cannot understand them.
There is nothing else to understand about this subject.
You will NOT be welcome in the Councils, after the War, UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND THOSE WORDS.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Gee, I wonder what they started with, if their "compromise" ended up with.....
"the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed!"
If you have the time you can research this and find out. The entire Bill Of Rights was a compromise. They fought tooth and nail about what should be included and how it should be worded.
The point I was making is they were not pure ridgid idealists, but realist who HAD to work together to achieve this most important goal, which we are so dedicated to maintaining.0 -
quote:If you have the time you can research this and find out. The entire Bill Of Rights was a compromise. They fought tooth and nail about what should be included and how it should be worded.
The point I was making is they were not pure ridgid idealists, but realist who HAD to work together to achieve this most important goal, which we are so dedicated to maintaining.
And you miss...or ignore..the point that the compromising IS DONE...or WOULD be..were there any men left in America. "Shall Not Be Infringed"...0 -
And you miss...or ignore..the point that the compromising IS DONE...or WOULD be..were there any men left in America. "Shall Not Be Infringed"...
X-ring.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:If you have the time you can research this and find out. The entire Bill Of Rights was a compromise. They fought tooth and nail about what should be included and how it should be worded.
The point I was making is they were not pure ridgid idealists, but realist who HAD to work together to achieve this most important goal, which we are so dedicated to maintaining.
And you miss...or ignore..the point that the compromising IS DONE...or WOULD be..were there any men left in America. "Shall Not Be Infringed"...
And you HB (and followers), miss the point that life is dynamic and ever changing and those who ignore this will be left behind and accomplish NOTHING!!![:(]0 -
quote:And you HB (and followers), miss the point that life is dynamic and ever changing and those who ignore this will be left behind and accomplish NOTHING!!!Jim, life is dynamic as hell and as such, it is a blast.
That does not negate, however, that the Constitution is NOT dynamic and changing, UNLESS it is changed through the amendment process, which is provided for in that very document.
Until and unless that happens, Amendment II today, means exactly what it meant when it was written and adopted, period, end of story.
**A belated caveat.....Regardless of any amendment that may be proposed and passed, the wording of Amendment II can be changed, but the Natural, or God-given Right to keep and bear arms remains, period.0 -
Application Jeff, application!!![;)] 0 -
'shall not be infringed', Jim, 'shall not be infringed'!!! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
'shall not be infringed', Jim, 'shall not be infringed'!!!
Out of context, Shane, out of context!!![;)]0 -
bullschit, Jim, bullschit!!!
'shall not be infringed' is quite clear and unambiguous.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
bullschit, Jim, bullschit!!!
'shall not be infringed' is quite clear and unambiguous.
So is "well regulated" Shane!!![}:)]
Out of context is out of context is it not????[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
bullschit, Jim, bullschit!!!
'shall not be infringed' is quite clear and unambiguous.
So is "well regulated" Shane!!![}:)]
Out of context is out of context is it not????[;)]
stupid and a liar. period.0 -
So is "well regulated" Shane!!!
Out of context is out of context is it not????
Jim,
The 'well regulated' clause suggest 'the people', who have the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, should be proficient in the use of those arms to better effect the defense of their liberty against tyrants.
This clause has been twisted, perverted, and distorted for years by many that claim big daddy 'G' has the right to 'regulate' the RTKBA. Pure bullschit.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
31 comments